You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International
Iraq resolution means UN is back: Dominique
2003-05-23
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin says the latest version of a United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq shows that the world body "is back".
Back where?
"We can consider that the UN is back, and at bottom that is now the key issue: to make sure that the UN can resume its place" in the handling of the Iraq crisis, he said. "We are convinced that the UN alone is capable of bringing its legitimacy, experience and effectiveness on the ground."
Like in the Congo...
He cited the nomination of a UN "special representative", which is stipulated in the resolution, as a sign of the UN's increased role. "At the start there was only talk of a 'co-ordinator', of someone whose job was just to watch developments from the sidelines. But now there's a political role, an independent role," he said on French state-run radio.
Ummm... A "special representative" would seem to have a somewhat less active role than a "coordinator." If you're the guy who does the coordinating, that kind of implies you have some sort of executive power. A special representative goes to meetings and looks distinguished, but all he does is wiggle his lips and try to present his owner's position for consideration. Or did I miss something?
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#5  Problem with a gold standard is a nations economy is subject to fluctuations of the gold market.
Posted by: Raptor   2003-05-24 07:52:13  

#4  Might I suggest their errors in puctuation meant a totally different statement:
"We can consider that the UN is back (and) at bottom, that is now the key issue: to make sure that the UN can resume its place (at bottom)"
Posted by: Frank G   2003-05-23 18:07:24  

#3  Hey, France went from 0 to 0.01 in Iraq (via the UN) so their increase was:

Limit of(0.1-0)/0 or a big assed increase...ahem...hrem..uhmm. Let them bask in their glory. It is their special day. (dumb bunnies........)
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-05-23 15:45:48  

#2  It's been a long time since I took a class in macroeconomics, but isn't the US money supply way to large to be on a gold standard? I believe there isn't that much gold in the entire world! Are there any knowledgeable Keynesian economists out there who can clarify?
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2003-05-23 14:39:52  

#1  Fred, De-vile-one is spinning, as usual. The UN has a "role" in Iraq now, which is what they wanted. It's kind of like the camel's nose in the tent. Unfortunately for the french, there's a big, bad watchdog with 4-inch fangs just inside that tent, waiting to make a meal of camel nose. Neither devillepan nor chirac are going to get what they want, and as long as chirac keeps tweaking the tiger's tail, they'll be treated as the nasty kiddies they are. I do believe that chirac watched too many katzenjammer kids videos, and believes he can act with impunity. The US will eventually have to do something nasty to chirac, directly, to get his attention. Cutting all foreign trade, any government-to-government exchange programs, and such, would be a good start. Also see my note about the Gold standard - chirac is making a lot of noise about Europe being on a gold standard, while all the rest of the world is using "fiat" money. If the US returned to the Gold standard, nobody would ever think of buying a fiat, renault, or pugeot.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-05-23 13:08:03  

00:00